Jer, I think the notion that the jabber:iq:browse JEP was Informational
took root because all of the other JEPs we've seen that cover old draft
protocols have been informational:
JEP-0012 (jabber:iq:last)
JEP-0022 (jabber:x:event)
JEP-0023 (jabber:x:expire)
JEP-0027 (jabber:x:encrypted, jabber:x:signed)
All of these protocols have been seen as sub-optimal in some senses, but
were approved because people knew they were strictly Informational. So I
think the expectation was that jabber:iq:browse was Informational as well
(the notion was old-draft-proto == Informational JEP). Whether or not that
expectation was correct is another question, but I can see how the idea
formed.
The problem now is that some Council members thought that, just as with
the other old draft-proto JEPs, the browse JEP too was informational, and
they voted on that basis. I just read the thread on this JEP from April
and you can see that there was confusion about this from the start. The
only option I see is to give all Council members the opportunity to vote
on this again given the understanding that this is Standards Track and not
Informational. However, I would expect some -1 votes if we do that because
several Council members said they would really like some changes to the
browse spec (that's part of the impetus behind the jabber:iq:disco spec).
So either we end up with a jabber:iq:browse spec that is different from
the one that has been implemented (thus breaking existing implementations)
or we label this one as informational and try to move forward with a true
standard-track proposal that everyone can get behind. We've already taken
this route with the other draft-proto JEPs referenced above, and I think
we need to do the same with browse.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
email+jabber: stpeter at jabber.org
weblog: http://www.saint-andre.com/blog/
On Tue, 7 May 2002, Jeremie wrote:
> > I would advise it to stay informational (as it has been documented and
> > understood);
>> I'm not sure how the misconception that it was "Informational" was ever
> started, the JEP has always been published as Standards Track. If you
> voted on the JEP without reading that at the top, then I'm not sure you
> should be able to retract your vote because you missed it.
>> If it were only informational then there would have been no grounds for
> the earlier -1's, or for the work to break the deadlock. If you feel
> strongly about major changes then that energy is probably best put into
> another Standards Track JEP (disco) to improve upon 0011.
>> Jer
>> _______________________________________________
> Council mailing list
>Council at jabber.org>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council>